Bay Window vs. Wide Vision cabeese

[BRAKIE]

DSO17

IMO some of the stuff you hear about nowadays about how dangerous cabooses were is exaggerated.

Absolutely..That was part of the Railroads PR story ..It lessen the shock of loosing thousands of jobs from carmen to brakeman and some conductors that had little seniority as  a conductor as well.

As far as not wanting to ride in the cupola there was a reason..None of us was overly thrilled about being a target for a rock thrower especially in some parts of a city..We would ride there between urban areas.

Now our beloved railroads wants to go to one man crew..A scary thought on one of those 11,000 foot monsters seeing the engineer can not leave his cab even if his train goes into emergency.

Their plan? Is to have a carman station every IIRC 50 miles..If that man is busy then there will be a traffic melt down if the train stops on single track.Now if that train stops in a city blocking crossings I'm sure the public will be happy and jump for joy over that.

What a brilliant idea the management and bean counters came up with.

Not!

 

[bogp40]

The only falling I can relate to is slipping on the ladder coming down from the cupola "seat" of a wide vision (still in WP paint, awesome). Much better view over and along both sides of the train over the bay window version (ex B&O I-17). Road in both (privately owned). Northfield/ Merideth to Lincoln, NH (Hobo RR)

[DSO17]

BRAKIE

What falling hazard? I have ridden both types of while working on the Chessie and I never heard of anybody on my division falling and word of injury accidents or death gets around pretty fast.

Since you mention it, I can't recall ever hearing of anybody falling out of a cupola either. Of course, as I noted in my post above, some of the men wouldn't go up there at all.

Now, I guess, somebody's going to come up with a report of a "falling out of the cupola injury"

IMO some of the stuff you hear about nowadays about how dangerous cabooses were is exaggerated.

[riogrande5761]

BRAKIE

What falling hazard? I have ridden both types of while working on the Chessie and I never heard of anybody on my division falling and word of injury accidents or death gets around pretty fast.

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a real issue that other RR's didn't act on.  Some companies do make descisions based on controlling costs due to hazard and liability so it makes sense if you think from that perspecitve.  The Caboose wiki mentions it although that may not be authoritative enough.  I think I recall reading it on a history blog as well.

 

As far as the OP is concerned, its going to boild down to what your personal preference is - when it comes to trains, modelers are influenced by asthetics as much as anything else.  IOW, what looks appropriate or cool to you.  There is no clear choice.  

 

Since you mentioned modern, the Fox Valley transfer caboose is a pared down version of the bay window, and may make a lot of sense or you could go with a traditional caboose of your choice and blank out the windows - remember in the 80's the FRA mandated saftey glass but most RR's chose to save money and plate over the windows with sheet metal.

[BRAKIE]

TrAcKr76

My modern regional still utilizes cabeese. They are equipped with snowplows, horn, bells, and headligts for reverse movements but they are mainly used on regular freight trains that are over 20 cars long. I have a question, if the crew has to do reverse movement with the caboose would a Bay Window or Wide Vision Caboose be best? It seems the wide vision has better visibilty but the bay window looks more appealing and modern and does not pose a falling hazard to the crew. Thanks.

 

Either one would work equally well.

What falling hazard? I have ridden both types of while working on the Chessie and I never heard of anybody on my division falling and word of injury accidents or death gets around pretty fast.

There are safety rules to follow like your not suppose to walk around in a moving caboose without using the hand hold that runs the lenght of the caboose.

[riogrande5761]

I recall reading that SP chose to go to bay window cabooses because they were safer than cupola, where men could get jarred out of their seats and fall down to the floor and get injured.

[wjstix]

TrAcKr76

It seems the wide vision has better visibilty but the bay window looks more appealing and modern and does not pose a falling hazard to the crew.

 

 

Actually bay window cabooses are quite a bit older, back to wood ones from the 1920's or so. The wide vision caboose was introduced in 1952 IIRC, first used by the DM&IR. Wide vision cabooses came along in answer to higher freight cars.

 

In the 1910's, the roofline of a caboose was the same height as the usual 8'-6" house cars (boxcars, reefers, stockcars), so the cupola allowed the rear crew to look over the cars and see far ahead. When 10'-6" cars became the standard around 1936, you couldn't see over them. Bay windows allowed you to look around them, but at a lower level.

 

The wide vision was the best of both worlds, with a cupola extended out over the side of the car. 

 

 

[tomikawaTT]

If I were choosing cabeese, my clearances and my prototype's preference would rule.

Actually, since neither coupolas (wide-vision or standard) nor bay windows ever served on the JNR, I don't own a single one.  When I use sections of US prototype crummies in my unlikely kitbashes, the bay windows and coupolas are left on the cutting room floor.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[DSO17]

There really isn't any difference in visibility between a wide-vision cupola and a bay window but, as noted, you don't have the falling hazard from the bay window.

When shoving, the man protecting the move was supposed to be out on the rear platform, but it was very common to stand just inside the door in bad weather, bad neighborhoods, etc.

By the way, on a lot of local freights and work trains equipped with cupola cabooses, the crew never used the cupola.

Also, I knew some older through freight conductors who never used the cupolas because they couldn't climb up there (especially on the old PRR cabins)

[dknelson]

On most reverse moves with a caboose that I see from time to time on the CP the crewman or crewmen are on the rear platform and blowing the air "whistle" for crossings.  In theory I guess it is a shoving platform and not a caboose.  Those are former Soo Line wide vision cabooses.

When the similar situation is seen on the UP locally, they use forrmer C&NW cabooses as their shoving platforms - and those are bay window cabooses.  And again the crewman is on the rear platform, even in rough weather.

In short the answer does not seem to rest on which type of caboose is the best for that kind of service, but which kind of caboose seems to be on hand based on the preferences of the railroad (or as in these Milwaukee area cases, the predecessor railroad).

Dave Nelson

[Indy Rail]

My modern regional still utilizes cabeese. They are equipped with snowplows, horn, bells, and headligts for reverse movements but they are mainly used on regular freight trains that are over 20 cars long. I have a question, if the crew has to do reverse movement with the caboose would a Bay Window or Wide Vision Caboose be best? It seems the wide vision has better visibilty but the bay window looks more appealing and modern and does not pose a falling hazard to the crew. Thanks.