You missed the point all of those" improvements" that hasn't made railroads safer..
They just sweeten the bottom line.
Carry a knuckle 87 cars in the middle of the night and get back to me.
Walk your 9,000 foot train to inspect it because of a mechical error on the detector in the middle of the night and get back to me.
Now add snow and ice..
Not safe at all.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE Allow me to say this, .Would a railroad turn a caboose? No..You see that cost money since you pay a 5 or 6 man crew and another man to operate the turntable(union job class) for nonessential work. As far as turning boxcars in my 9 1/2 years of railroading I never seen it done.In fact I seen far more "Do not hump" then "Unload from other side".I unloaded boxcars one summer when I was 15 (lied about my age since you had to be 16.) and never seen that..
Allow me to say this,
.Would a railroad turn a caboose? No..You see that cost money since you pay a 5 or 6 man crew and another man to operate the turntable(union job class) for nonessential work.
As far as turning boxcars in my 9 1/2 years of railroading I never seen it done.In fact I seen far more "Do not hump" then "Unload from other side".I unloaded boxcars one summer when I was 15 (lied about my age since you had to be 16.) and never seen that..
Where I worked we had a crew turn a caboose (using a wye). It was done so the fill pipe for the heater was on the same side as the trackside kerosene tank. not a huge deal, but made fueling it a LOT easier*.
Same place we've also had to turn a couple boxcars a year.
*- wonder how many more employees hiring out can say they fueled a caboose?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
BRAKIE You missed the point all of those" improvements" that hasn't made railroads safer.. They just sweeten the bottom line. Carry a knuckle 87 cars in the middle of the night and get back to me. Walk your 9,000 foot train to inspect it because of a mechical error on the detector in the middle of the night and get back to me. Now add snow and ice.. Not safe at all.
I wouldn't say it hasn't made the railroad safer. Detector technology has come a long way, especially in the last few years. Cars are sidelined with minor problems long before it causes havoc on the mainline.
And not causing undue delay on the main also helps the bottom line.
tstage Two questions. First, I know that - generally - for rolling stock; which end of the car was facing towards the front of a train was non-critical. Were there ever exceptions?
Two questions. First, I know that - generally - for rolling stock; which end of the car was facing towards the front of a train was non-critical. Were there ever exceptions?
Back to the first question: One example is that PRR (and later PC and CR) had different speed restrictions for wreck derricks depending on the direction of travel. IIRC it was 30MPH with the boom trailing and 20MPH with the boom leading. It was listed in the Timetable Instructions.
zugmannDetector technology has come a long way, especially in the last few years. Cars are sidelined with minor problems long before it causes havoc on the mainline.
Yes,I can see that with all the derailments we are having today sideswips in the yard and close calls.
BRAKIE Yes,I can see that with all the derailments we are having today sideswips in the yard and close calls.
I don't know what detectors have to do with sideswipes in the yard?
Actually around here there is great emphasis (both by the company and by the FRA) about fouling points. Whether it is helping or not is yet to be determined I guess, but its not like these incidents are some sort of "new" occurrence.
Before this conversation gets too OT, I'd like to thank everyone for their input to the thread in regards to the original question(s).
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
The only other thing (besides cars with booms) where direction is important would be welded rail trains. They have to be pointed the correct way to pick up or drop off rail.
That would be "WERE"
Mike C.
wobblinwheel That would be "WERE"
Say again?
On non cupola cabeese what would be correct smoke stack forward or rearward
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
I don't think it matters, cabooses were put on ends of trains as needed
"Find out how many people were injured on cabooses in 1962 and compare that to how many people were injured on cabooses 50 years later in 2012. If those two numbers are close then you have debate. If they aren't then there's no debate. I'm gonna say there isn't a debate"
Well considering there are very few if any cabooses used on trains now, how could any one even call it a debate?You're comparing apples to grapefruit! mh
UncBob On non cupola cabeese what would be correct smoke stack forward or rearward
Have heard of cabooses up north (say Maine and Canada) having two stoves, but around here (PA, NJ, DE, MD) they had one stove and don't recall anybody caring what end it was at, as long as it worked and there was enough coal or oil. It might seem that it would be better to have the stove at the leading end of a drafty cab, but it really didn't matter, even at high speed and single-digit temperatures.
The most common stove I recall was the Caban oil stove. IIRC it had five heat "notches" and the second was enough most of the time. Might need the third once in a great while. This was the case for cupola, bay-window and transfer cabooses.
m horton "Find out how many people were injured on cabooses in 1962 and compare that to how many people were injured on cabooses 50 years later in 2012. If those two numbers are close then you have debate. If they aren't then there's no debate. I'm gonna say there isn't a debate" Well considering there are very few if any cabooses used on trains now, how could any one even call it a debate?You're comparing apples to grapefruit! mh
It is exactly apples to apples.
That the elimination of cabooses reduced the injuries is EXACTLY the point. Since there are no cabooses, there are no injuries on cabooses. Those injuries went away, gone, completely not happening. By definition something that reduces injuries and accidents makes things safer.
Railroads used link and pin couplers. So many trainmen were injured on them that a trait of trainmen was they were missing fingers. They did away with link and pin couplers. Employees aren't hurt putting links in drawheads anmymore. The vast vast majority of trainmen work their entire career with all their fingers. Technology eliminated the cause and the injures went away.
Railroads used handbrakes. Brakemen had to run along the tops of the cars setting and releasing handbrakes. Hundreds of trainmen were hurt or killed falling off the tops of cars. One of the purposes of cabooses was to carry trainmen to set those brakes. Railroads converted to air brakes. Trainmen no longer had to run along tops of cars. Today cars don't even have ladders to get to the tops of cars. Virtually no trainmen are injured falling off the tops of cars. Technology eliminated the cause and the injuries went away.
Railroads that carried a lot of hazmat had to stop and make a walking inspection of their trains at regular intervals. The head brakeman would drop off and they would pull the front half of the train past him. Then he would crossover and walk up the ther side to the engine. At the same time the rear brakeman would walk up one side to the middle of the train. Then he would crossover. The train would then pull the rear half of the train by the rear brakeman and he would get on the caboose as it went by. Brakie has already talked about the hazards of walking trains. The railroads installed defect detectors. Those inspections were no longer required. Any hazards or injuries due to walking those inspections no longer occurred. Technology eliminated the cause and the injuries went away.
Cabooses were once of the most common places for trainmen to get injured. Despite what Brakie says, it was a rough ride, even if the engineers were doing a good job. I was always told that if a roadmaster wanted to find rough track, he should ride the caboose. I have been on the rear platform and hit rough track where the caboose bounced so hard, both my feet came off the floor. I personally knew brakemen who were knocked from one end of the caboose to the other when the slack ran in. Railroads changed rules, developed EOT's, added signals and CTC, and eliminated most cabooses. Trainmen were rarely injured on cabooses. Technology eliminated the cause and the injuries went away.
To say that technology hasn't reduced injuries is to deny history.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Dave,Do you actually believe what you wrote? I don't.
Sounds to be like you have never rode in a caboose and just relating stories the railroads used to gain support for the elimination of the caboose and thousands of jobs.
I now suppose you will tell me the purposed 1 man road and local crews the railroads is pushing for are going to be safer?
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
cv_acr It has no real bearing on operation on a train. The only real reason to specifically turn a caboose would be something like zugmann's example of getting the fuel tank filler on the right side of the train where the oil tank & hose is located. Or other similar servicing.
A lot of the larger terminal caboose servicing tracks had a a fuel hose on both sides of the tracks.
Also a coal bunker would be needed if modeling a earlier era.
In addition to what Brakie has decribed caboose supply tracks would have water and ice, plus a suply of general materials (torpedoes, fusees, brooms, etc). In more modern eras the "water" would be in little plastic bottles. Often the ice would come from one of theose big ice cube machines or would be a big freezer and a company would deliver bagged ice.
Clerical craft employees supplied cabooses in many areas.
On some roads, even after road cabooses were pooled, local and yard cabs were assigned to certain jobs and it was part of the train crew"s duty to service and supply (but not repair) their own cab. Often, if the local and pool cabs were mixed on the service tracks the car knockers would just service them all together. (It always pays to be nice to the carmen)
Also, at least on some roads, even after cabs were pooled, the final responsibility for having proper and sufficient flagging equipment (red flags, torpedoes, fusees, etc.) rested on the train crew.
BRAKIE Dave,Do you actually believe what you wrote? I don't. Sounds to be like you have never rode in a caboose and just relating stories the railroads used to gain support for the elimination of the caboose and thousands of jobs.
I think Dave's main point - that cabooses were in effect a 'necessary evil' that railroads eliminated as soon as the technology existed to replace it - has a lot of merit. It's easy to romanticize 'the little red caboose behind the train', and certainly in the past (especially in the days of assigned cabooses) railroaders had many fond memories of their years in the caboose. For those of us old enough to remember cabooses, trains just don't seem 'right' without them.
However many trainmen were injured or killed in cabooses over the years also. Classic Trains had a story a year or two back about a situation in West Virginia (IIRC) where someone left a switch set the wrong way, and a coal train going around 30 MPH went onto the wrong track. The engineer had to go into emergency to brake the train, and the slack action caused a crewman in the caboose to be killed.
wjstixThe engineer had to go into emergency to brake the train, and the slack action caused a crewman in the caboose to be killed.
I been in caboose when the engineer went into emergency and I know from experience there's got to be a lot more to that story.
Even with a emergency application you're not going to stop on a dime and hand back 9 cents change.
If one thinks of the millions of miles that was safety rode in a caboose he will soon find out that his chances of being killed in a car wreck is far greater.
To listen to the railroads the caboose was a death trap waiting to claim another victim.Sadly there are those that still believe that myth today.
It was a not easy for the railroads to gain public and Government support with thousands of jobs at stake so,the railroads pulled out all stops.
I had to turn a Budd RDC once. Another time I had to turn a GG1. I forget what the reason was, it was a long time ago. All I know is that I was told to do it, so I did it.
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
In the 60's I used to spend my summers in a village halfway down a CNR branchline which had daily-exc-Sunday mixed train service. The train had a caboose (van as we say in Canada) and a coach-baggage combine that were always on the tail end. The cupola was always facing west, with the coach end of the combine coupled to that end. So eastbound the consist was eng-freight cars-combine-van and westbound was eng-freight cars-van-combine. In other words, the van and combine were kept coupled together and not turned at the outer terminal. At the originating terminal, the train left the freight yard and picked up the combine at the passenger station, with the station shunter setting the combine on the train after uncoupling the van. When the train returned, the shunter only had to uncouple the combine and the train could be quickly on the way back to the freight yard. Later on, while working for the CPR in yards and wayfreights all over the prairies for 2 summers, I never witnessed vans being deliberately turned to face the cupola end in a poarticular direction. This is probably alot more info than you were looking for. Hope it's helpful
While cabooses were never turned on a turntable, they could be turned along with a locomotive on a wye. Most bigger yards and terminals had a wye.
Dave is correct. This is an old thread, so don't know if Brakie will read, but maybe someone reading in 2017 will get some info out of it . Possibly Brakie works for a small line with shorter trains, or little coupler slack, ...... but riding the rear end on a 100 car train in the 60s and 70s could be very rough, and you could get hurt if you didn't wedge yourself in. Not so long ago, in 2004, I went along on a delivery of two luxury observation dome cars from Denver to Vancouver, BC, and we rode the rear end of freights (BNSF and MRL) ..... the slack action was really bad! Nowadays they are prohibited from using power braking, so it was worse than in the Old Days.......
Note that I love cabooses and hate it that they are gone now.
Skip Luke
Retireded Railroader
Many years ago, I ran across a book called "Railroadman. Henry Clay French. with plates," by Chauncy del French, in the fiction section of our little public library. It turned out to be the biography of his father, Henry Clay French, who started working for the Hannibal & Saint Joseph RR in Missouri, sometime around the Civil War. That it was non-fiction was proved by details in one of my favorite railroad books, "This Was Railroading," by George B. Abdill. If you model late 19th/early 20th century railroading, I highly recommend it.
I was surprised to learn that in the days of wood cars and iron men, when passenger coaches were sometimes heated by a single coal stove, they were actually turned to put the stove in the front of the car so the heat would waft backward from it! Maybe this also applied to cabooses on roads in the cold, cold north country. Just sayin'...
Deano
I am happy this thread has been resurrected. I'm buying popcorn for everyone.
salty4568Possibly Brakie works for a small line with shorter trains, or little coupler slack, ....
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
salty4568Dave is correct. This is an old thread, so don't know if Brakie will read, but maybe someone reading in 2017 will get some info out of it . Possibly Brakie works for a small line with shorter trains, or little coupler slack, ...... but riding the rear end on a 100 car train in the 60s and 70s could be very rough, and you could get hurt if you didn't wedge yourself in.
I hardly think the PRR/PC or Chessie(C&O)/CSX are small roads.
Not sure of your engineers train handling skills since they seem to be lacking. I bet they break a lot of knuckles with that herky jerky train handling and have a lot of damage claims filed..
Ever watch one of today's trains come to a smooth stop and then make a smooth start?
So am I, it makes interesting reading.
Two points: 1. Anyone wanting to see a small red NS caboose in action might watch the Roanoke web cam -the hotel one. There is a movement, which I believe is daily, from one yard to another and it passes the camera intially being pushed then it can be seen again on its return trip at the rear of a short train.
2. I have five cabooses, of varying styles, on my garden railroad. However I often take the easy way out, especially on coal trains, by placing a red flag of the coupler.
Alan, Oliver & North Fork Railroad
https://www.buckfast.org.uk/
If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there. Lewis Carroll English author & recreational mathematician (1832 - 1898)