Given the age of that MC RR caboose (it has wood beam trucks!), I'd suspect the shields are the work of an enterprising conductor or brakeman.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Necessity being the mother of invention and all —
DTSL_120cab by Edmund, on Flickr
Just a quick survey of photos I have on hand seems to find only two out of ten had any kind of splash shield applied. I wonder if the burlap ones shown on the M. C. RR caboose were officially sanctioned or something an industrious conductor made up after one-too many soakings?
Regards, Ed
CapnCrunch...the end railings of the caboose appear to have canvas panels attached. This would be an interesting detail to model. Has anyone seen such a panel before and would they be era specific?
I've not seen the canvas panels, but would guess them to offer some protection from wheel spray from whatever car the caboose might be following.CPRail and the TH&B used metal panels for the same purpose...
...and while I didn't cover the access to the ladder (not needed for the caboose shown above, as they date from the no-roof-walk era), I did use a "metal" panel on the non-ladder side of this modified Athearn bay window caboose, as my layout is set in the late '30s, with roofwalks on all house cars...
Wayne
gmpullmanOpen to more comments
Okay, I'm going to accept Ed's invitation and go off topic here. In his post from the Library of Congress, the end railings of the caboose appear to have canvas panels attached. This would be an interesting detail to model. Has anyone seen such a panel before and would they be era specific?
Tim
Late to the model railroad party but playing catch-up.....
Some railroads offered mixed train service up until the early 1970s, carrying paying passengers in the caboose. The cars carrying the revenue riders ranged from repurposed drover cars to Budd built corrugated streamlined coaches on the Georgia Railroad. I imagine overflow crowds would be handled on most mixed trains by digging up an old coach or, simply tacking on an extra caboose. The one encounter with a mixed train that sticks with me is a Santa Fe train out of Amarillo, TX, headed up the Boise City branch in 1966. An F-7A, four assorted B-units, 96 covered hoppers and boxcars trailed by a boxcar red 85-foot, clerestory roofed steel combine in the 2600 series, similar to the car once offered in HO by AHM. During grain shipping time that one unit, 2 or 3 car train could blossom into a monster! Perhaps you could use it for a mixed train even if you don't handle live stock or, find a use for it in maintenance-of-way or wreck service. Railroads were notorious for finding utilization far beyond a serviceable item's intended purpose.
In the 1960's GN also converted some passenger cars into cabooses, sometimes just taking an old baggage car, painting it red, and adding a window, desk and chair.
NHTXSearching "drovers caboose photos", one will see some very interesting rolling stock.
I bought a brass model of a "drover caboose" years ago not knowing what a "drover" was.
I will never have stock car operations.
Were these used for any other purpose when not needed for drover service?
-Kevin
Living the dream.
For those interested, GN's Hutchinson caboose was not the only extra length design on America's railroads. Railroads that did a lot of business hauling livestock would often run solid trains of stock cars at various times. By federal law, the animals must be unloaded, fed, and watered after so many hours in transit. This was not handled by railroad employees but, by cowboys employed by the shipper. These men traveled on the same train as the animals, usually riding in an old passenger car or a longer than usual caboose. Some of these cars actually looked more like coaches with cupolas, while others had extra windows and no cupolas. Most of these cars were found on lines that served the mid and southwestern U.S. including the Katy (MKT), Cotton Belt (SSW), Mopac (MP) and Santa Fe (ATSF). Searching "drovers caboose photos", one will see some very interesting rolling stock.
I believe the GN Hutchinson caboose's extra length was because of the additional express/LCL space. So more of a combination baggage/caboose thean a simple waycar.
Wartime austerity:
(Did they run out of red paint on the right side of the end?)
Georgia_RR-2844 by Edmund, on Flickr
Many roads turned to rebuilding older house cars into cabooses to fill the void created by increased Wartime traffic.
B&O rebuilt dozens of stock cars into this I-13 class, again, with a bay window:
BnO_I-13_C1819b by Edmund, on Flickr
Member Tom Stage has built at least one excellent example of a New York Central "War emergency" caboose. NYC built fifty road cabooses from former 36 foot box cars plus dozens of "temporary" cabooses that the NYC didn't even try to hide the fact that they were former box cars. A few didn't even have end doors!
Read more about those here:
https://nycshs.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cabooseclassics2.pdf
wjstixI suppose the other extreme from the 'bobber' would be Great Northern's Hutchinson caboose:
Now that's a long caboose! I see those come up for sale at BrassTrains Dot Com, and they always sell very quickly.
Neat piece of equipment.
Yes CNW 12432 is for sure a recently repainted wood caboose, possibly already a half-century old in 1943. Some midwestern railroads had 1880's-1890's cabooses that lasted into the 1970's.
State laws could affect the caboose size. Here in Minnesota, the Railway Act of 1911 required all cabooses to be 24' or longer, and have two trucks with at least four wheels in each. Some railroads that had a lot of 4-wheel 'bobber' cabooses combined two of them into one longer caboose...the classic wood Missabe Road caboose modelled in HO by Walthers is a perfect example. If you compare it to a bobber, with two windows with the cupola centered above them, you can see how that was translated to the longer caboose.
I suppose the other extreme from the 'bobber' would be Great Northern's Hutchinson caboose:
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1886822
dti406 cv_acr dti406 If you had a caboose with a 10' inside height and then added a cupola it would not get through some of their tunnels which limited the cars to those with 10' inside height or lower. I can't say I've ever seen a caboose with a body that tall on anyone's railroad. Just checked a drawing for a PRR N5 Caboose, top of cupola was approximately 13'6" above the top of rail, would have been taken off in some of the B&O's low tunnels. Rick Jesionowski
cv_acr dti406 If you had a caboose with a 10' inside height and then added a cupola it would not get through some of their tunnels which limited the cars to those with 10' inside height or lower. I can't say I've ever seen a caboose with a body that tall on anyone's railroad.
dti406 If you had a caboose with a 10' inside height and then added a cupola it would not get through some of their tunnels which limited the cars to those with 10' inside height or lower.
I can't say I've ever seen a caboose with a body that tall on anyone's railroad.
Just checked a drawing for a PRR N5 Caboose, top of cupola was approximately 13'6" above the top of rail, would have been taken off in some of the B&O's low tunnels.
Rick Jesionowski
And a 10'0" INSIDE height boxcar shows 14'8" extreme OUTSIDE height above the rail (over running boards) and 13'6" to the eaves (corners of roof) in equipment registers. If a tunnel can't handle that it can't handle much of anything, and your 13'6" caboose is totally fine (being almost 14" shorter), and its body is certainly NOT 10' INSIDE height as stated in the previous post. Most cabooses would be closer to 7' I.H.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
Looks to be wood sides, not steel, so despite fresh paint, it probably is an austerity measure - fix up a wood caboose instead of replacing it with a new steel one.
Reading needed more cabooses at the time - they built mostly the same as previous classes, except instead of steel sides they had plywood.
gmpullmanHere's another excellent photo from the OWI collection at the Library of Congress taken by Jack Delano in 1943:
again!!!
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
The I-12 "wagontop":
BnO_C-2423 by Edmund, on Flickr
— and a sister to the C-2019
Middlefield_0001 by Edmund, on Flickr
A friend of mine once owned this Central Vermont International Car Co. caboose. It was decked out with all the "trimmings":
RR_views_4043 by Edmund, on Flickr
Cheers, Ed
I saw some B&O cabooses up close in West Virginia.
They are not very big.
I could not stand up straight on the end platform. I am 6' 7" tall.
But the B&O had center cupola cabooses before they went to the bay window design.
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org./bo/bo-c383.jpg
Mark Vinski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
As cars got taller, looking over the top became less and less possible. There were two options - the wide vision cupola liek the International Car Co design, with the cupola overhanging the sides, or the bay windows with no cupola at all.
dti406If you had a caboose with a 10' inside height and then added a cupola it would not get through some of their tunnels which limited the cars to those with 10' inside height or lower.
tstage Q: Generally speaking, did the length of a caboose ever dictate what kind of service it was used in - e.g. local vs branchline vs fast freight, etc?
Q: Generally speaking, did the length of a caboose ever dictate what kind of service it was used in - e.g. local vs branchline vs fast freight, etc?
A lot of railroads built cabooses in their own car shops using underframes from retired boxcars.
Even if not using re-used underframes, the overall frame length of the caboose designs were often the same as a 40' boxcar.
dti406 gmpullman B&O and bay window. I wonder how much influence their pressed-steel "wagon-top" design had to do with adopting the bay window? Certainly fitting a bay window was easier than trying to design a cupola using the curved steel sections. Regards, Ed I think the B&O developed the bay window caboose due the clearance problems they had on some of their lines. If you had a caboose with a 10' inside height and then added a cupola it would not get through some of their tunnels which limited the cars to those with 10' inside height or lower. The B&O bought 10' inside height cars a lot longer than most other railroads until they raised a few of their tunnels to accomodate 10'-6" inside height cars. Rick Jesionowski
gmpullman B&O and bay window. I wonder how much influence their pressed-steel "wagon-top" design had to do with adopting the bay window? Certainly fitting a bay window was easier than trying to design a cupola using the curved steel sections. Regards, Ed
B&O and bay window. I wonder how much influence their pressed-steel "wagon-top" design had to do with adopting the bay window? Certainly fitting a bay window was easier than trying to design a cupola using the curved steel sections.
I think the B&O developed the bay window caboose due the clearance problems they had on some of their lines. If you had a caboose with a 10' inside height and then added a cupola it would not get through some of their tunnels which limited the cars to those with 10' inside height or lower. The B&O bought 10' inside height cars a lot longer than most other railroads until they raised a few of their tunnels to accomodate 10'-6" inside height cars.
I often wondered if it had anything to do with mountain terrain. I have riden a good bit of the B&O mainline west, and it is like an endless snake thru woods and rock bluffs.
Looking at the side of the train might provide just as much or more information to the crew as looking at the top of the train?
Sheldon
I did my version of "extensive" research (I read one book) on cabooses when I was making my plans for the final STRATTON AND GILLETTE.
What I found was cabooses 32 to 40 feet could be used in any service. Most 40 foot cabooses were rebuilt from other types of freight cars.
Wood cabooses lasted well past the end of steam.
Western cabooses, as Sheldon pointed out, were more "live-aboard" in general than Eastern cabooses.
I decided the "standard" caboose on the SGRR would be this brass model of a wooden GULF MOBILE AND OHIO prototype. I have collected ten of them, which is all I need.
I also have seven (I think) one-off other STRATTON AND GILLETTE cabooses in my collection.
The GM&O prototype looked generic enough to me that it really could not be readily identified as Eastern or Western, it was wooden, but not "old-timey", and most important... it had a CENTERED cupola!
I love this caboose, forty feet long and a deep fishbelly underframe. I plan to eventually srcatchbuild one of these for the SGRR.
Tom, in a way, the service a caboose was in could be reflected in its length. A car used by a crew in yard or local service where, the crew went home to their own beds at night would not need to provide sleeping accommodations. Think of the "transfer" caboose. Cars used on runs that ended at distant terminals were often the crew's home away from home and, were often assigned to and, used by one conductor. As "his property", they were highly personalized and, added to the train when he got on and, removed when he got off. These cars were long enough to provide bunks for up to five.
As union agreements changed and railroads faced stiffer competition from other modes of transportation, the railroad YMCA and, contract boarding houses began to provide lodging at the "away" end of the run. The crews liked the idea of a real bed, toilet facilities, and meals they didn't have to cook, away from the noise and smoke of the railroad yard. Thus began the era of the "pool caboose" which could be put on at one end of the railroad and, run all the way to the other, no matter how many crew changes that took place. The railroads liked this because the cabooses could be smaller, and they didn't need so many of them.
Cars used where runs terminated in remote areas might still need to be capable of sheltering the crew and had to provide sleeping and eating capabilities. These cars were often cabooses removed from mainline service, having been replaced by the pool cabooses. As much as modelers and the general public romanticize about the "little red caboose", they could often be a pretty miserable place to ride. Too cold in the winter-the Canadians' final iteration of the cars had TWO heaters. They could also be convection ovens in the hot climates. Imagine sitting in a dark painted steel box on a 106 degree day in the desert of West Texas or Arizona with no breeze at all, under a cloudless sky. Yeah, they could be pretty miserable! Then there is the slack action as the train transitions between draft and buff. Best to be seated with your feet braced against something immovable. When you have four locomotives and well over 100 cars kicking up dirt ahead of you at 60 MPH, guess where a large portion of it ends up? Yeah, you're right! Remember its 106 degrees outside and now you are on the hind end of 110 cars of PRB coal doing 40 MPH-wouldn't it be nice to be able to open the lead door? Too bad they plated over all the side windows-but they didn't open anyway!
Most guys I know, especially those out west in road service, shed no tears when the last caboose rolled into the sunset. The railroads enjoyed not having to maintain or haul around thirty tons of steel that generated not one penny of revenue and, was often the place where employees got hurt on the job. As a modeler, I am from the generation where it was the period that made the train a complete sentence-but knowing the rest of the story dims the shine quite a bit.
rrinkerOther Easter roads copied the Reading design with some variation, and Reading even built cabooses for some others.
I recall reading that the Reading based their steel caboose on a 1920 USRA design and that the only railroad to have the actual wood-sheathed, steel underframe USRA model was the Pittsburgh & Shawmutt. (More on that in another reply)
http://www.readingrailroad.org/roster/roster_cabooses_ne.shtml
8914 001 by John W. Barriger III National Railroad Library, on Flickr
Here's another excellent photo from the OWI collection at the Library of Congress taken by Jack Delano in 1943:
CnNW_12432-Proviso_4-43 by Edmund, on Flickr
Here's yet another example of special spring-bolster trucks installed for better riding qualities. Note the different mounting of the left-most window, and only that one has the rain gutter. I first spotted a similar arrangement like this on many NYC cabooses. I presume this window is arranged for the crew to open fully? Perhaps it slides to the side instead of vertically?
rrinker Reading is another one that had a lot of the little 4 wheel 'bobber' cabooses. The need for pushers and other rule changes, plus the older cars simply wearing out, drove the adoption of newer one in the familiar 8 wheel center cupola pattern. Other Easter roads copied the Reading design with some variation, and Reading even built cabooses for some others. Various state law changes drove other changes, such as a PA requirement that a caboose used on run over a certain length had to have toilet facilities. Reading was pretty conservative in design. While there were differences between various classes of cabooses built at different times, until the wide vision design purchased from International Car Co, they were all in-house built and varied mostly by details, not overall design. There is literally a book on the subject which explains each class and the changes over the years in great detail. --Randy
Reading is another one that had a lot of the little 4 wheel 'bobber' cabooses. The need for pushers and other rule changes, plus the older cars simply wearing out, drove the adoption of newer one in the familiar 8 wheel center cupola pattern. Other Easter roads copied the Reading design with some variation, and Reading even built cabooses for some others.
Various state law changes drove other changes, such as a PA requirement that a caboose used on run over a certain length had to have toilet facilities.
Reading was pretty conservative in design. While there were differences between various classes of cabooses built at different times, until the wide vision design purchased from International Car Co, they were all in-house built and varied mostly by details, not overall design. There is literally a book on the subject which explains each class and the changes over the years in great detail.
Yes, the ATLANTIC CENTRAL has Reading built cabooses, and Reading built 4-8-4's........